DOCSLIB.ORG

On the First Order Approximation of Counterfactual Price Effects in Oligopoly Models

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the First Order Approximation of Counterfactual Price Effects in Oligopoly Models On the First Order Approximation of Counterfactual Price Effects in Oligopoly Models∗ Nathan H. Millery Marc Remerz Georgetown University Department of Justice Conor Ryanz Gloria Sheuz Department of Justice Department of Justice August 2013 Abstract We develop how first order approximation can be used to make counterfactual price predictions in oligopoly models. We extend the theoretical results of Jaffe and Weyl (2013) on mergers to any counterfactual scenario involving perturbations to firms’ first order conditions. We show that, for vertical shifts to firms’ cost functions, first order approximation simplifies naturally and is exact for a class of demand systems. We then use Monte Carlo experiments to evaluate accuracy. We find that (i) first order approximation is more accurate than simulation in 91.7% of the mergers considered; (ii) it is more accurate than simulation in 98% of the cost shocks considered; and (iii) simple versions of approximation, of interest to antitrust practitioners, exist and systematically outperform merger simulation. Keywords: first order approximation; cost pass-through; simulation; mergers JEL classification: K21; L13; L41 ∗We thank Nicholas Hill, Sonia Jaffe, Alexander Raskovich, Charles Taragin, Glen Weyl and Nathan Wilson, as well as seminar participants at the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Stony Brook University, for valuable comments. This paper includes some results circulated in the now defunct working paper titled \Approximating the Price Effects of Mergers: Numerical Evidence and an Empirical Application." The views expressed herein are entirely those of the authors and should not be purported to reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice. yGeorgetown University, McDonough School of Business, 37th and O Streets NW, Washington DC 20057. Email: [email protected]. zDepartment of Justice, Antitrust Division, Economic Analysis Group, 450 5th St. NW, Washington DC 20530. Email: [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. 1 Introduction This paper addresses the first order approximation of counterfactual price effects in oligopoly models. First order approximation may best be introduced in its relation to simulation, a methodology that is a staple in industrial organization and other fields of economics. The accuracy of simulation requires functional forms that characterize reasonably how economic relationships change away from the observed equilibria. First order approximation, by con- trast, allows the researcher to remain largely agnostic about functional forms. Instead, the second-order properties of the relevant functions, in the neighborhood of the observed equilibria, are gleaned from pass-through and subsequently used to inform counterfactual predictions. The theoretical literature has long recognized that pass-through is connected to demand curvature (e.g., Bulow and Pfleiderer (1983)), and this has garnered more attention recently (e.g., Fabinger and Weyl (2012), Weyl and Fabinger (2013)). However, there is little prior research that explores the theoretical properties of first order approximation and none that investigates empirically the accuracy of its counterfactual predictions. Our starting point is the theoretical work of Jaffe and Weyl (2013), which derives first order approximation in the context of mergers between horizontally differentiated competi- tors. We first extend the theory to any counterfactual scenario involving perturbations to firms’ first order conditions, and focus especially on vertical shifts in the marginal cost and demand functions faced by firms. Such scenarios include, but are not limited to, pollution permits trading programs, production or sales taxes, exchange rate fluctuations, and some forms of innovation. Each involves the same fundamental issue: the extent to which firms transmit cost or demand shocks to consumers in the form of price adjustments. Predom- inately, papers in industrial organization use simulation to examine such scenarios { first order approximation provides an alternative methodology that potentially is more robust. We explain how the primitives required for implementation of first order approximation can be obtained from pass-through and show how the formulas can be manipulated to best make use of the available information. We then present additional theoretical results for counterfactual scenarios involving vertical shifts in firms’ marginal cost functions. First, we show that in such settings first order approximation simplifies and can be implemented by pre-multiplying the cost changes by the cost pass-through matrix. This result is both simple and powerful. The immediate implication is that reduced-form econometric estimates of pass-through can be used to make meaningful out-of-sample predictions, alleviating in some cases the need for structural esti- 1 mation.1 Second, we prove that first order approximation is exact in models characterized by constant pass-through, such as those that feature a class of demand functions identified in Bulow and Pfleiderer (1983).2 Third, we show that the above results extend to scenarios involving \industry-wide" cost shocks that affect all firms equally. Knowledge of how firms respond to industry-wide shifts in the observed equilibria, either collectively or individu- ally, is sufficient to support predictions based on first order approximation that are fully consistent with oligopoly interactions. This latter result is relevant to a large and growing literature in macroeconomics and international trade. These theoretical results in hand, we use Monte Carlo experiments to evaluate the accuracy of first order approximation, both absolutely and relative to simulation. These experiments complement the theoretical results, which demonstrate the precision of approx- imation only for counter-factual scenarios involving arbitrarily small perturbations and in certain special cases, such as when firms have quadratic profit functions or for vertical cost and demand shifts with constant pass-through demand systems. The Monte Carlo exper- iments allow us to evaluate tractably the quality of counter-factual predictions in those settings that are most relevant for researchers and policy-makers. We first parameterize the logit, almost ideal, linear and log-linear demand systems to reproduce each of 3,000 randomly drawn sets of data on market shares and margins. The data generating process is designed to cover a wide range of firm and industry conditions. Importantly, we calibrate the demand systems such that the demand elasticities are identical in each for a given draw of data. Marked differences in demand curvature and pass-through exist though and lead to differences in counterfactual predictions. We impose a number of counterfactual changes on each parameterized system, including (i) a merger between two firms; (ii) a firm-specific vertical shift in the marginal cost of one firm; and (iii) an industry-wide vertical shift in the marginal cost functions of all firms.3 1The result can be interpreted as provided external validity to reduced-form pass-through estimates because, provided consistent pass-through estimates are obtained (i.e., internal validity is achieved), the econometrician can extrapolate beyond the range of the data to model counter-factual scenarios based on the logic of first order approximation. 2Demand must induce firms to employ constant pass-through rates. Weyl and Fabinger (2013) provide versions of this result for the case of single-product firms. The applicability of the result in settings with multi-product firms is limited as there the only demand system with constant pass-through that also satisfies Slutsky symmetry is linear. 3The generated data confirm the Monte Carlo results of Crooke, Froeb, Tschantz, and Werden (1999) regarding the sensitivity of merger simulation to functional form assumptions. Our work thus has relevance to a burgeoning literature that compare merger simulation to direct ex post estimates of actual price effects (e.g., Nevo (2000); Peters (2006); Weinberg (2011); Weinberg and Hosken (2013); Bjornerstedt and Ver- boven (2012)), in that we highlight the potential importance of demand curvature assumptions in creating discrepancies between merger simulations and realized price effects. 2 We then compare the predictions of first order approximation, calculated using infor- mation on curvature and pass-through in the initial equilibrium, to the true price effect. We also compare first order approximation to the predictions of misspecified simulation, i.e., simulation conducted with correct elasticities but incorrect assumptions on the functional forms. Of course, simulation that is conducted with correct functional form obtains the true price effect. This empirical design yields results that are relevant to researchers who have estimated accurately the relevant elasticities, as they exist in the observed equilibria, but who have imperfect knowledge about how the elasticities change away from those equilibria. In our data, first order approximation outperforms misspecified simulation systemat- ically and substantially. Consider first the case of mergers. We find that the prediction errors that arise with first order approximation are tightly distributed around the true price effects, while with misspecified simulation the empirical distributions of prediction error ex- hibit bias and fatter tails. The median absolute prediction error that arises with first order approximation typically is an order of magnitude less than that of misspecified simulation, and the absolute
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Mathematical Modelling
    An Introduction to Mathematical Modelling Glenn Marion, Bioinformatics and Statistics Scotland Given 2008 by Daniel Lawson and Glenn Marion 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Whatismathematicalmodelling?. .......... 1 1.2 Whatobjectivescanmodellingachieve? . ............ 1 1.3 Classificationsofmodels . ......... 1 1.4 Stagesofmodelling............................... ....... 2 2 Building models 4 2.1 Gettingstarted .................................. ...... 4 2.2 Systemsanalysis ................................. ...... 4 2.2.1 Makingassumptions ............................. .... 4 2.2.2 Flowdiagrams .................................. 6 2.3 Choosingmathematicalequations. ........... 7 2.3.1 Equationsfromtheliterature . ........ 7 2.3.2 Analogiesfromphysics. ...... 8 2.3.3 Dataexploration ............................... .... 8 2.4 Solvingequations................................ ....... 9 2.4.1 Analytically.................................. .... 9 2.4.2 Numerically................................... 10 3 Studying models 12 3.1 Dimensionlessform............................... ....... 12 3.2 Asymptoticbehaviour ............................. ....... 12 3.3 Sensitivityanalysis . ......... 14 3.4 Modellingmodeloutput . ....... 16 4 Testing models 18 4.1 Testingtheassumptions . ........ 18 4.2 Modelstructure.................................. ...... 18 i 4.3 Predictionofpreviouslyunuseddata . ............ 18 4.3.1 Reasonsforpredictionerrors . ........ 20 4.4 Estimatingmodelparameters . ......... 20 4.5 Comparingtwomodelsforthesamesystem . .........
    [Show full text]
  • Example 10.8 Testing the Steady-State Approximation. ⊕ a B C C a B C P + → → + → D Dt K K K K K K [ ]
    Example 10.8 Testing the steady-state approximation. Å The steady-state approximation contains an apparent contradiction: we set the time derivative of the concentration of some species (a reaction intermediate) equal to zero — implying that it is a constant — and then derive a formula showing how it changes with time. Actually, there is no contradiction since all that is required it that the rate of change of the "steady" species be small compared to the rate of reaction (as measured by the rate of disappearance of the reactant or appearance of the product). But exactly when (in a practical sense) is this approximation appropriate? It is often applied as a matter of convenience and justified ex post facto — that is, if the resulting rate law fits the data then the approximation is considered justified. But as this example demonstrates, such reasoning is dangerous and possible erroneous. We examine the mechanism A + B ¾¾1® C C ¾¾2® A + B (10.12) 3 C® P (Note that the second reaction is the reverse of the first, so we have a reversible second-order reaction followed by an irreversible first-order reaction.) The rate constants are k1 for the forward reaction of the first step, k2 for the reverse of the first step, and k3 for the second step. This mechanism is readily solved for with the steady-state approximation to give d[A] k1k3 = - ke[A][B] with ke = (10.13) dt k2 + k3 (TEXT Eq. (10.38)). With initial concentrations of A and B equal, hence [A] = [B] for all times, this equation integrates to 1 1 = + ket (10.14) [A] A0 where A0 is the initial concentration (equal to 1 in work to follow).
    [Show full text]
  • Differentiation Rules (Differential Calculus)
    Differentiation Rules (Differential Calculus) 1. Notation The derivative of a function f with respect to one independent variable (usually x or t) is a function that will be denoted by D f . Note that f (x) and (D f )(x) are the values of these functions at x. 2. Alternate Notations for (D f )(x) d d f (x) d f 0 (1) For functions f in one variable, x, alternate notations are: Dx f (x), dx f (x), dx , dx (x), f (x), f (x). The “(x)” part might be dropped although technically this changes the meaning: f is the name of a function, dy 0 whereas f (x) is the value of it at x. If y = f (x), then Dxy, dx , y , etc. can be used. If the variable t represents time then Dt f can be written f˙. The differential, “d f ”, and the change in f ,“D f ”, are related to the derivative but have special meanings and are never used to indicate ordinary differentiation. dy 0 Historical note: Newton used y,˙ while Leibniz used dx . About a century later Lagrange introduced y and Arbogast introduced the operator notation D. 3. Domains The domain of D f is always a subset of the domain of f . The conventional domain of f , if f (x) is given by an algebraic expression, is all values of x for which the expression is defined and results in a real number. If f has the conventional domain, then D f usually, but not always, has conventional domain. Exceptions are noted below.
    [Show full text]
  • PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Math 8/Algebra I Course Outline Form Course Title
    PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Math 8/Algebra I Course Outline Form Course Title: Math 8/Algebra I Course Number/CBED Number: Grade Level: 8 Length of Course: 1 year Credit: 10 Meets Graduation Requirements: n/a Required for Graduation: Prerequisite: Math 6/7 or Math 7 Course Description: Main concepts from the CCSS 8th grade content standards include: knowing that there are numbers that are not rational, and approximate them by rational numbers; working with radicals and integer exponents; understanding the connections between proportional relationships, lines, and linear equations; analyzing and solving linear equations and pairs of simultaneous linear equations; defining, evaluating, and comparing functions; using functions to model relationships between quantities; understanding congruence and similarity using physical models, transparencies, or geometry software; understanding and applying the Pythagorean Theorem; investigating patterns of association in bivariate data. Algebra (CCSS Algebra) main concepts include: reason quantitatively and use units to solve problems; create equations that describe numbers or relationships; understanding solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain reasoning; solve equations and inequalities in one variable; solve systems of equations; represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically; extend the properties of exponents to rational exponents; use properties of rational and irrational numbers; analyze and solve linear equations and pairs of simultaneous linear equations; define,
    [Show full text]
  • The Exponential Constant E
    The exponential constant e mc-bus-expconstant-2009-1 Introduction The letter e is used in many mathematical calculations to stand for a particular number known as the exponential constant. This leaflet provides information about this important constant, and the related exponential function. The exponential constant The exponential constant is an important mathematical constant and is given the symbol e. Its value is approximately 2.718. It has been found that this value occurs so frequently when mathematics is used to model physical and economic phenomena that it is convenient to write simply e. It is often necessary to work out powers of this constant, such as e2, e3 and so on. Your scientific calculator will be programmed to do this already. You should check that you can use your calculator to do this. Look for a button marked ex, and check that e2 =7.389, and e3 = 20.086 In both cases we have quoted the answer to three decimal places although your calculator will give a more accurate answer than this. You should also check that you can evaluate negative and fractional powers of e such as e1/2 =1.649 and e−2 =0.135 The exponential function If we write y = ex we can calculate the value of y as we vary x. Values obtained in this way can be placed in a table. For example: x −3 −2 −1 01 2 3 y = ex 0.050 0.135 0.368 1 2.718 7.389 20.086 This is a table of values of the exponential function ex.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Antiderivatives for Exponential Functions Recall That for F(X) = Ec⋅X, F ′(X) = C ⋅ Ec⋅X (For Any Constant C)
    1. Antiderivatives for exponential functions Recall that for f(x) = ec⋅x, f ′(x) = c ⋅ ec⋅x (for any constant c). That is, ex is its own derivative. So it makes sense that it is its own antiderivative as well! Theorem 1.1 (Antiderivatives of exponential functions). Let f(x) = ec⋅x for some 1 constant c. Then F x ec⋅c D, for any constant D, is an antiderivative of ( ) = c + f(x). 1 c⋅x ′ 1 c⋅x c⋅x Proof. Consider F (x) = c e +D. Then by the chain rule, F (x) = c⋅ c e +0 = e . So F (x) is an antiderivative of f(x). Of course, the theorem does not work for c = 0, but then we would have that f(x) = e0 = 1, which is constant. By the power rule, an antiderivative would be F (x) = x + C for some constant C. 1 2. Antiderivative for f(x) = x We have the power rule for antiderivatives, but it does not work for f(x) = x−1. 1 However, we know that the derivative of ln(x) is x . So it makes sense that the 1 antiderivative of x should be ln(x). Unfortunately, it is not. But it is close. 1 1 Theorem 2.1 (Antiderivative of f(x) = x ). Let f(x) = x . Then the antiderivatives of f(x) are of the form F (x) = ln(SxS) + C. Proof. Notice that ln(x) for x > 0 F (x) = ln(SxS) = . ln(−x) for x < 0 ′ 1 For x > 0, we have [ln(x)] = x .
    [Show full text]
  • Antiderivatives Math 121 Calculus II D Joyce, Spring 2013
    Antiderivatives Math 121 Calculus II D Joyce, Spring 2013 Antiderivatives and the constant of integration. We'll start out this semester talking about antiderivatives. If the derivative of a function F isf, that is, F 0 = f, then we say F is an antiderivative of f. Of course, antiderivatives are important in solving problems when you know a derivative but not the function, but we'll soon see that lots of questions involving areas, volumes, and other things also come down to finding antiderivatives. That connection we'll see soon when we study the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC). For now, we'll just stick to the basic concept of antiderivatives. We can find antiderivatives of polynomials pretty easily. Suppose that we want to find an antiderivative F (x) of the polynomial f(x) = 4x3 + 5x2 − 3x + 8: We can find one by finding an antiderivative of each term and adding the results together. Since the derivative of x4 is 4x3, therefore an antiderivative of 4x3 is x4. It's not much harder to find an antiderivative of 5x2. Since the derivative of x3 is 3x2, an antiderivative of 5x2 is 5 3 3 x . Continue on and soon you see that an antiderivative of f(x) is 4 5 3 3 2 F (x) = x + 3 x − 2 x + 8x: There are, however, other antiderivatives of f(x). Since the derivative of a constant is 0, 4 5 3 3 2 we can add any constant to F (x) to find another antiderivative. Thus, x + 3 x − 2 x +8x+7 4 5 3 3 2 is another antiderivative of f(x).
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Constants and Sequences
    Mathematical Constants and Sequences a selection compiled by Stanislav Sýkora, Extra Byte, Castano Primo, Italy. Stan's Library, ISSN 2421-1230, Vol.II. First release March 31, 2008. Permalink via DOI: 10.3247/SL2Math08.001 This page is dedicated to my late math teacher Jaroslav Bayer who, back in 1955-8, kindled my passion for Mathematics. Math BOOKS | SI Units | SI Dimensions PHYSICS Constants (on a separate page) Mathematics LINKS | Stan's Library | Stan's HUB This is a constant-at-a-glance list. You can also download a PDF version for off-line use. But keep coming back, the list is growing! When a value is followed by #t, it should be a proven transcendental number (but I only did my best to find out, which need not suffice). Bold dots after a value are a link to the ••• OEIS ••• database. This website does not use any cookies, nor does it collect any information about its visitors (not even anonymous statistics). However, we decline any legal liability for typos, editing errors, and for the content of linked-to external web pages. Basic math constants Binary sequences Constants of number-theory functions More constants useful in Sciences Derived from the basic ones Combinatorial numbers, including Riemann zeta ζ(s) Planck's radiation law ... from 0 and 1 Binomial coefficients Dirichlet eta η(s) Functions sinc(z) and hsinc(z) ... from i Lah numbers Dedekind eta η(τ) Functions sinc(n,x) ... from 1 and i Stirling numbers Constants related to functions in C Ideal gas statistics ... from π Enumerations on sets Exponential exp Peak functions (spectral) ..
    [Show full text]
  • Handout on Higher-Order Approximation
    Higher-Order Approximations Using Taylor Polynomials MA 113, University of Kentucky p 1. Estimating 2 p p We will estimate 2 by finding a polynomial that approximates the function 1 + x, and then p p evaluate that polynomial at x = 1 to estimate 1 + 1 = 2. p Step 1: Linear Approximation. If we use the linearization of f(x) = 1 + x at the point a = 0, then we have 1 L(x) = f 0(0)(x − 0) + f(0) = x + 1 : p 2 p Thus, we have 1 + 1 ≈ L(1) = 3=2 = 1:5. Since the true value of 2 is 1:41421 :::, this is a p reasonable but not particularly accurate approximation of 2. We need something better! Step 2: Quadratic Approximation. The key idea to higher-order approximations is to realize that the higher derivatives of f(x) have a role to play. The linearization of f(x), which is frequently called a “first-order approximation", only involves the first derivative. Can we use the p second derivative somehow? Yes! Using f(x) = 1 + x, define the second-order approximation of f(x) at a = 0 to be f 00(0) −1 1 T (x) = (x − 0)2 + f 0(0)(x − 0) + f(0) = x2 + x + 1 : 2 2 8 2 (The capital T stands for \Taylor", with the \2" representing the second derivative.) Figure 1 p contains the graphs for the functions f(x) = 1 + x, L(x), and T2(x) | you see that T2(x) is a parabola that is tangent to f(x) at the point (0; 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Calculus and Optimization
    Economics 101A Section Notes GSI: David Albouy Notes on Calculus and Optimization 1 Basic Calculus 1.1 Definition of a Derivative Let f (x) be some function of x, then the derivative of f, if it exists, is given by the following limit df (x) f (x + h) f (x) = lim − (Definition of Derivative) dx h 0 h → df although often this definition is hard to apply directly. It is common to write f 0 (x),or dx to be shorter, or dy if y = f (x) then dx for the derivative of y with respect to x. 1.2 Calculus Rules Here are some handy formulas which can be derived using the definitions, where f (x) and g (x) are functions of x and k is a constant which does not depend on x. d df (x) [kf (x)] = k (Constant Rule) dx dx d df (x) df (x) [f (x)+g (x)] = + (Sum Rule) dx dx dy d df (x) dg (x) [f (x) g (x)] = g (x)+f (x) (Product Rule) dx dx dx d f (x) df (x) g (x) dg(x) f (x) = dx − dx (Quotient Rule) dx g (x) [g (x)]2 · ¸ d f [g (x)] dg (x) f [g (x)] = (Chain Rule) dx dg dx For specific forms of f the following rules are useful in economics d xk = kxk 1 (Power Rule) dx − d ex = ex (Exponent Rule) dx d 1 ln x = (Logarithm Rule) dx x 1 Finally assuming that we can invert y = f (x) by solving for x in terms of y so that x = f − (y) then the following rule applies 1 df − (y) 1 = 1 (Inverse Rule) dy df (f − (y)) dx Example 1 Let y = f (x)=ex/2, then using the exponent rule and the chain rule, where g (x)=x/2,we df (x) d x/2 d x/2 d x x/2 1 1 x/2 get dx = dx e = d(x/2) e dx 2 = e 2 = 2 e .
    [Show full text]
  • Common Core State Standards for MATHEMATICS
    Common Core State StandardS for mathematics Common Core State StandardS for MATHEMATICS table of Contents Introduction 3 Standards for mathematical Practice 6 Standards for mathematical Content Kindergarten 9 Grade 1 13 Grade 2 17 Grade 3 21 Grade 4 27 Grade 5 33 Grade 6 39 Grade 7 46 Grade 8 52 High School — Introduction High School — Number and Quantity 58 High School — Algebra 62 High School — Functions 67 High School — Modeling 72 High School — Geometry 74 High School — Statistics and Probability 79 Glossary 85 Sample of Works Consulted 91 Common Core State StandardS for MATHEMATICS Introduction Toward greater focus and coherence Mathematics experiences in early childhood settings should concentrate on (1) number (which includes whole number, operations, and relations) and (2) geometry, spatial relations, and measurement, with more mathematics learning time devoted to number than to other topics. Mathematical process goals should be integrated in these content areas. — Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood, National Research Council, 2009 The composite standards [of Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore] have a number of features that can inform an international benchmarking process for the development of K–6 mathematics standards in the U.S. First, the composite standards concentrate the early learning of mathematics on the number, measurement, and geometry strands with less emphasis on data analysis and little exposure to algebra. The Hong Kong standards for grades 1–3 devote approximately half the targeted time to numbers and almost all the time remaining to geometry and measurement. — Ginsburg, Leinwand and Decker, 2009 Because the mathematics concepts in [U.S.] textbooks are often weak, the presentation becomes more mechanical than is ideal.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Mathematics Curriculum Framework — 2017
    Massachusetts Curriculum MATHEMATICS Framework – 2017 Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12 i This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members Mr. Paul Sagan, Chair, Cambridge Mr. Michael Moriarty, Holyoke Mr. James Morton, Vice Chair, Boston Dr. Pendred Noyce, Boston Ms. Katherine Craven, Brookline Mr. James Peyser, Secretary of Education, Milton Dr. Edward Doherty, Hyde Park Ms. Mary Ann Stewart, Lexington Dr. Roland Fryer, Cambridge Mr. Nathan Moore, Chair, Student Advisory Council, Ms. Margaret McKenna, Boston Scituate Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA, 02148, 781-338-6105. © 2017 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906 Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4906 Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to present to you the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics adopted by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in March 2017.
    [Show full text]